Author
Topic: On the recurrence of discussions (Read 9377 times)

This came about on a reflection based on linking some recent (and not so recent) threads with common practice in the social sciences.

******

First-off, what is "beating a dead horse" in regards to a discussion?

That can supposedly be resolved easily with a definition:

Quote from: wikipedia

is an idiom that means a particular request or line of conversation is already foreclosed or otherwise resolved, and any attempt to continue it is futile; or that to continue in any endeavour (physical, mental, etc.) is a waste of time as the outcome is already decided.

All in all that is well and simple: perhaps its the same discussion that has been replayed in its standard iterations for the billionth time in a very similar manner... but is that a dead-end? is it futile? has the outcome been decided?

I posit that it is not any of this things, but here is the catch: there needs to be reviewing of past discussions, history of the subject, and a general knowledge of what has been said and done before. And it also requires the participants in the discussion to integrate the new information or knowledge that is discussed even if it runs contrary to their ideology or beliefs (otherwise its just partisan screeching on any given debate).

This is where it relates to the social sciences: it is not forbidden or useless to discuss anything... but the more a topic or subject has been discussed or dissected, the cost to be paid for those that wish to participate in the discussion, the more work they have to do to actually do something useful... one has to review previous positionings or theories, learn about their critiques or downfalls and what came of it.

Say, you want to make a serious statement on what and why "love" is what it is, beyond what you subjectively think it is? Go read up on the history of the positions regarding the subject, the context in which those positions affected the creation of that posture, the critiques, assess the current context in which you create the new concept and then maybe if you arent tired after all that, you can make that serious statement.

Speaking specifically about PD and its drug threads, theres agreement on that its a reiteration of past discussions, so the correct thing to do is for those interested in discussing such topic, to read ALL the drug threads, so they know the context and the arguments, instead of running around in circles.

I agree. It's not so easy to find all the past iterations, though. Someone who knows where they are should definitely post links ASAP in the reiteration.

If I've never been in the particular argument before, then someone saying, "It's been done before, this isn't going to get anywhere" doesn't really help me feel closure. Specific links would be the first step, and then if the participants feel they can improve on the past arguments then progress can be made.

Thining of proper response. But i think regardless rwhn wont be able to convice us. Likewise we wont be able to convince him. And even if we could i cant fault him for not letting us know. It would be like working for a democratic mayor and publically admitting youre a republican.

Epi: Yea, not all of them are labelled as drug threads, because this discussions tend to be somewhat related but not specifically regarding the OP, its more of a type of drift that happens. So yeah, some thread archeology would be useful, i particularly only recall one that was titled "Cannabis" and another one called "REEFER MADNESS".

Also, arguing legalization of drugs, the medical use of marijuana, and other subjects tend to be mixed instead of being argued at the same time... i understand this is valid on some ocassions (as in the political reasons, such as regarding the FDA), but usually arguing several points at the same time just creates confusion.

Twid: I dont mind either side convincing the other side or not, but at least see new iterations in the arguments exposed would be nice, or maybe reach a true dead-end where its just "we agree to disagree" (to which some people have seemed to have reached, and part of the why i stopped posting when the discussion drifted towards legalization, rather than probable cause and rights violations).

In that particular thread, probable cause and rights violations should have trumped everything, and that would have made a pretty good discussion. The problem was that the conversation revolved around drugs. Now, I partook in it myself, but if you bring drugs into the whole thing it's going to collapse into a whole legalization thing. The problem with it is is that it's always going to resolve to that. Truth be told I am kinda surprised that RWHN would approve of use of "Advanced search techniques" in a high school even considering his anti-drug stance. But again, we're talking about drugs. It's always going to come back to is weed (not drugs, just weed) really that bad and should it be legalized. BEcause for some reason drugs mean weed. I mean, as far as I can tell no one's going to say that crystal meth should be sold in every convenience store.

I could go on and ramble and tangent, but then that would just make another drug thread.

In that particular thread, probable cause and rights violations should have trumped everything, and that would have made a pretty good discussion. The problem was that the conversation revolved around drugs. Now, I partook in it myself, but if you bring drugs into the whole thing it's going to collapse into a whole legalization thing. The problem with it is is that it's always going to resolve to that. Truth be told I am kinda surprised that RWHN would approve of use of "Advanced search techniques" in a high school even considering his anti-drug stance. But again, we're talking about drugs. It's always going to come back to is weed (not drugs, just weed) really that bad and should it be legalized. BEcause for some reason drugs mean weed. I mean, as far as I can tell no one's going to say that crystal meth should be sold in every convenience store.

I could go on and ramble and tangent, but then that would just make another drug thread.

The weed issue is the Great Hemorrhoid Symptomatic of the Catastrophic Constipation of AmurkaTM.

Most people are ok with it being decriminalized. It's not hard to google cops and judges coming out in favor of decriminalization.Even people who never liked it have friends and family members who have been arrested for it at some point. It sucks watching good people go to jail while you're stepping over parking lot vomit every time you go to the club. It sucks even more when they're going through chemo. It sucks hearing the neighbors drunken fights night after night. It sucks having to stop on the sidewalk, turn some smelly wino on his side when he's having a grand mal, and call 9-11 because everybody else is standing around with their finger in their ass. etc. etc. 300 pages. But marijuana is nowhere near decriminalization here because They say it's "dangerous".

Most of us have had it ground into our heads from the time we were preschoolers that we live in a democracy. We know better now, but on some level a lot of people might still be adjusting, or hoping to change it, or angry, or in denial, or something. I suspect that's why every discussion with drugs in it always comes back to the same shit and plays out over and over and over.

« Last Edit: June 10, 2012, 12:35:07 am by TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS »

Thining of proper response. But i think regardless rwhn wont be able to convice us. Likewise we wont be able to convince him. And even if we could i cant fault him for not letting us know. It would be like working for a democratic mayor and publically admitting youre a republican.

Uh, trust me, I can safely say you guys have not convinced me that I am wrong. I do know, that past threads have had past members, slightly alter their viewpoint, usually having a better understanding of the impact of drugs on youth. But I am nobody's shill and speak for me and what I know and believe.

Thining of proper response. But i think regardless rwhn wont be able to convice us. Likewise we wont be able to convince him. And even if we could i cant fault him for not letting us know. It would be like working for a democratic mayor and publically admitting youre a republican.

Uh, trust me, I can safely say you guys have not convinced me that I am wrong. I do know, that past threads have had past members, slightly alter their viewpoint, usually having a better understanding of the impact of drugs on youth. But I am nobody's shill and speak for me and what I know and believe.

I think it is quite possible to change each other's minds on PD. It's happened before. We just happen to have very strongly-opinioned people, so it's going to be a bit tougher than it might be elsewhere. Doesn't mean we should give up the discussions.

Although I do get sick of the name-calling and shit-flinging ... Can't we quit the "You do not agree with me so you are lesser" vibe? It's cool where it's in good humor, but when it gets in the way of communication...

I think it is quite possible to change each other's minds on PD. It's happened before. We just happen to have very strongly-opinioned people, so it's going to be a bit tougher than it might be elsewhere. Doesn't mean we should give up the discussions.

That's only one reason to argue. Another one is because I'm amused, intrigued, and disgusted at the myriad ways that people pull the wool over their own eyes. And another is to familiarize myself with what robots like RWHN are likely to beep at me in the future so I'll be better prepared to short-circuit them in person.

Although I do get sick of the name-calling and shit-flinging ... Can't we quit the "You do not agree with me so you are lesser" vibe? It's cool where it's in good humor, but when it gets in the way of communication...

When people do things to lose your respect, it's absurd to think we should feign it or end a discussion because some bad words might hurt their fee-fees.

Communication ≠ "being nice".

« Last Edit: June 10, 2012, 01:32:29 pm by Net »

Logged

It's too bad that whole families have to be torn apart by something as simple as wild dogs.  J A C K H A N D E Y

Thining of proper response. But i think regardless rwhn wont be able to convice us. Likewise we wont be able to convince him. And even if we could i cant fault him for not letting us know. It would be like working for a democratic mayor and publically admitting youre a republican.

Uh, trust me, I can safely say you guys have not convinced me that I am wrong. I do know, that past threads have had past members, slightly alter their viewpoint, usually having a better understanding of the impact of drugs on youth. But I am nobody's shill and speak for me and what I know and believe.

And I can safely say you have not changed your viewpoint on iota, no matter how credible and in what quantities it has been presented to you.

But you're not a shill.

Logged

It's too bad that whole families have to be torn apart by something as simple as wild dogs.  J A C K H A N D E Y